1. Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 2000 while Pete was going for Borg's record of 5 straight Wimby's on Pete's best and favorite surface. Sampras was slightly past his prime, while Roger was still a couple years away from his.

Tier 1:Federer (most complete player ever, without a doubt. McEnroe's feel, Lendl's levelheadedness, consistency and stamina, Sampras's serve and forehand, Baryshnikov's feet (there's not another tennis player ever who moved as well as he does), Safin's shotmaking.
as dominant over a short span as Borg was, and still has 7 or 8 good years ahead of him if he wants it -- SCARY. He'll never be the undisputed BE until he has 15 slams and at least 1 French Open, but he's certainly the best I've ever seen. Prime Fed beats prime Sampras 7 out of every 10, is my guess. Pete had an amazing serve, but plenty of holes in his game, and contrary to board opinion, did a lot more coasting on return games than Federer does. Fed just looks so relaxed out there, it can be wrongly interpreted as not trying. All the greatest athletes know how to relax out there: think of Gretzky, Jordan, Zidane (pre-headbutt), Bird.

Borg (5 wimbledons, 6 French Opens in a short career, several US Open Finals -- quit while he was still on top and still completely untouchable on clay. Prime Borg vs. Nadal on clay -- that's what I'd love to see.)

Tier 2:Agassi (won each of the grand slams),

McEnroe (best touch and hands. as dominant as Federer for a short stretch, beat Connors 6-1, 6-1, 6-2 (or something like that) in a Wimbledon final.),

Connors (longevity, grand slam victories in different eras)

Lendl (7 straight US Open Finals, almost always playing at the end of grand slams for a long stretch),

Tier 1:Federer (most complete player ever, without a doubt. McEnroe's feel, Lendl's levelheadedness, consistency and stamina, Sampras's serve and forehand, Baryshnikov's feet (there's not another tennis player ever who moved as well as he does), Safin's shotmaking.
as dominant over a short span as Borg was, and still has 7 or 8 good years ahead of him if he wants it -- SCARY. He'll never be the undisputed BE until he has 15 slams and at least 1 French Open, but he's certainly the best I've ever seen. Prime Fed beats prime Sampras 7 out of every 10, is my guess. Pete had an amazing serve, but plenty of holes in his game, and contrary to board opinion, did a lot more coasting on return games than Federer does. Fed just looks so relaxed out there, it can be wrongly interpreted as not trying. All the greatest athletes know how to relax out there: think of Gretzky, Jordan, Zidane (pre-headbutt), Bird.

Borg (5 wimbledons, 6 French Opens in a short career, several US Open Finals -- quit while he was still on top and still completely untouchable on clay. Prime Borg vs. Nadal on clay -- that's what I'd love to see.)

Tier 2:Agassi (won each of the grand slams),

McEnroe (best touch and hands. as dominant as Federer for a short stretch, beat Connors 6-1, 6-1, 6-2 (or something like that) in a Wimbledon final.),

Connors (longevity, grand slam victories in different eras)

Lendl (7 straight US Open Finals, almost always playing at the end of grand slams for a long stretch),

I understand Agassi's opinion is worth 100 times more than mine, but at the same time, I cannot ignore what I've seen from both players. I think Federer has a higher ceiling than Sampras in terms of talent, but will never get there cause he seems to like to coast through games. Much like T-Mac (I hate using cross sports analogies), who has a seemingly unlimited potential, but is content with coasting. Sampras on the other hand played with more passion and perfection in his game.

Also take into consideration that Agassi was a lot better when he played Sampras than Federer. back in the days where Agassi was able to hold his own against anyone, where as he was on his decline against a fast rising player like Federer.

fair enough, agree to disagree.
i agree that federer does coast at times, but the thing that impresses me most about him is that when he decides enough is enough, he absolutely crushes his opponent. he can lose a set 6-4, then take the next set 6-0. just ridiculous. when he's at his best, he is certainly the best player i've ever seen play.

What part of "Best players since 1975" don't you understand? It's in the title.

I've never seen Rod Laver play, so I don't feel qualified to judge him great or not. If you extended the list to best players of the open era, or best players ever, he'd no doubt be in the first tier. But I'm not arrogant enough to judge players I've never seen play.